RESPONSE TO JUSTICE HEENAN RE: CIV1877 OF 2010 & CIV1981 OF2010

From: nnchin@optusnet.com.au
> To: Stephen.Somerville@justice.wa.gov.au
> CC: nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:10:21 +1000
> Subject: Re: CIV 1877 and 1981 of 2010
Dear Mr. Somerville:)
> Thank you for your email below and I would like to respond to it as follows:
> a) Please bring this email to the attention of His Honour Justice E.M. Heenan that I humbly request for His Honour to refrain or to desist from making a determination of the two cases of CIV 1877 of 2010 and CIV 1981 of 2010.
> b) The reasons for my request is that His Honour is apprehended by me not be capable of delivering me fair justice on account of his apprehended bias; he he had dismissed my case of CIV 1019 of 2010 upon the illogicality of what he had perceived to be an obsession on my part, which he inexplicably refused to substantiate.
> c) This is coupled with his unwillingness as a judicial officer to unravel the mystery of my case which he with due diligence should be able to understand. His perceived unfairness to me had resulted in a deep shock and trauma for me, from which I am trying to recover through my appeal process in CACV 41 of 2010.
> d) My case with the regulator of the legal profession hinges only on three simple issues which I referred to metaphorically as the Gordian Knot, which the courts have been unwilling to make a legal determination of: the Pseudo Board, the zero sum value fraudulent claim by Mr. Thies in CIV 1903 of 2008 and the technical slip of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 at paragraph 54 and 55.
> e) If the Gordian Knot is solved, there would be no longer be any dispute between the regulator and myself and my independent legal practice would be restored.
> f) The Civ 1877 of 2010 is about the technical slip of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 which can be rectified without an appeal process by resorting to s.33 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 of WA.
> g) the CIV 1981 of 2010 case is about apprehended bias of His Honour Justice Kenneth Martin in determining the second stage of the s.36 Magistrates Court Act, 2004 initially launched by me through the first judge Justice Hasluck which has now gone astray through the second judge Justice Ken Martin in CIV1903 of 2008 who had refused to adopt the normal approach of the common law.
> h) I do not object to His Honour Justice EM Heenan to further deal with these two cases but only if His Honour is aware of the consequences of his proneness to error if he is not alerted to them. I therefore suggest that His Honour Google my name NICHOLASNCHIN to investigate the gist of the information available at my blogspot in order to enable his Honour to make a just determination of these matters before him.
> i) I have to be away from Perth on an emergency to be with my son Paul C K Chin in West Malaysia as my son has taken ill again as a result of the continuing intimidation of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies to ask for profit costs in CIV 1112 of 2007 which he is not entitled to by law resulting from the error of Justice Ken Martin.
> Thank you.
> NICHOLAS N CHIN
> Phone: +6065529459
> Mobile:+60126269682
>
Stephen.Somerville@justice.wa.gov.au wrote:
> > Dear Mr Chin
> > I advise that the above matters have been re-listed to commence at not
> > before 12pm tomorrow before the Hon Justice EM Heenan.
> > Could you please confirm receipt of my email with a return email.
> > Kind regards
> > Stephen Somerville
> > Associate to the Hon Justice EM Heenan
> > Supreme Court of Western Australia Phone: (08) 9421 5120
> > Fax: (08) 9421 5167
> > E-mail: Stephen.Somerville@justice.wa.gov.a